The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1887-11-25
rmETEsr GASES.

A-note received from Attorney General
Bradford OF Kansas, says he sends us .
brief In the case. The State of Kansas vs
Ziebold and Hagelln, which will convince
us he was not negligent concerning thsi
case. We are very willing to be convine.
ed, but must confess that the perusal oi
the brief has not convinced Us. What We
complain Of, ls not Ahe lack ef brief, but
the absence Of any one to meet oral arga'
mens with oral argument-allewlng the
oral argument Of Senator Vest and Mr..
choate for the liquor men to be met by
nothing bat brief, as was the case. The
legislature OF Kansas was so impressed
withthe Importance Of this and ctkeF
cases, that Il appropriated 5000 to be
used by Attorney General Bradtordin Sc
caring additional counsel, II necessary.
The liquor men showed their apPrecia.
ton Of the importance Of the situation By
retaining United States Senator and enc
of the leading lawyers of the country,
while Bradford conlented himself with
sending brief. Our opinion that MF.
Bradford sinned through igneranes came
from a clause In atelegram dated October
18th, sent to him :--"I am completely
taken by surprise" lie now explains that
his surprise was occasioHed not by the
case having come upthe Issh, for he had
caused II to be advanced but BY the oral
arguments, when he supposed there were
to be only briefs. II seems 20 ne that with
such vital issue pending he should have
known, as there was abundant opportunity
for him TO do.
Before Mr.. Packard left Chicago for
Washington, several kilograms were cent
from here to Attorney General Bradford
10 ascertain how the matter stood, asking
authority 10 apply for the re.oPenlng Of
the case, and proaereing aid from the pro-
hibitIonists, II needed. No answer was re-
eeived. We then telegraphed 20 prom.
lnent w. c. 7. U. lady In Topeka to so
Immediately to the Attorney General and
repeat the substance Of these messages.
She did so, and this brought response
bat not tIIl after Mr.. Packard's departure
Meanwhile, Mr.. Packard, having received
authority from the Attorney General OF
Iowa and the City Attorney Of Atlanta. TO
act for them, made a motion 10 advance
the cases In which they were interested,
so that they should be argued before the
Kansas case. This was denied. Al last.
nearly two weeks after the case had bsen
argued blythe liquor lawyers, Bradford ar
rived In Washington and made his motion
for rehearing Of the Zeiboid-Hagelin
case. The court took the case under ad.
yisement and aiterward denied II.
II now transpires that the reason At
torney General Bradford Of Kansas, was
not on hand 10 meet the oral argument Of
Vest and Choate In the Zieboid-Hagsiin
case was that a written agreement had
been entered into between himself and the
counsel for defense, that the case should
not be argued orally, but By briefs, and
that the oral argument of those gentlemen
was allowed in disregard Of this agree.
ment. The excuse fer allowing this Is
hat Choate and Vest were not retained
BY the defendants but were employed
~ the National Brewers Association, but
ge cannot see that this fact exonerates the
Court from blame. When this matter was
to the attention of Judge Miller.
&c declared his ignorance OF any such
lgreement, and examination of the papers
howed that this agreement was not print
ID on the notice of the case sent to the
Court, though Il was plaiuly written on
he copy submitted. On being questioned
concerning the affair the clerk through
vhose hands the document passed, said
ne agreement, being on q separate slip of
PAPER accidentally got lost" Queer ac-
'idents sometimes happen.
A rule Of the Federal Supreme Court
prevents an argument being made BY
'ounsel except upon due notice being serv-
d upon opposing counsel. Asno notice
vas given Attorney General Bradford,
he oral argument of Vest and choate
we're in violation of this rule that they |
we're allowed seems to presage favor
bic decision, as the custom OF the SUI
'reme Court is to give the largest liberty
the side having the weakest case. II
he Court should decide against us, the
act that 1t thus allowed the transgression
+ its own regulations will be ssong point
gainst u in the minds OF the people.
Mr.. Bradford assures us that he Is, and |
as always been, a Prohibitionist that he
either smokes, chews, drinks, plays cards
or Billiards was never an attorney for a |
fhisky association in his life never de-
ended man charged with the sale Of In
'xicating liquors has always advocated
ne enforcement OF prohibitory law, and
as been three times shot at for so doing
.arge retainers have been offered him to
Ct as counsel fora whisky organization,
ut he refused them. He is now prepar.
lg statistics to show the effect of prohibit
on upon crime, pauperism and insanity
J Kansas.
A novel suit has been begun by the
tate of Indiana against the state of Ken
icky for the sovereignty overs little 10
md in the Ohio river, at the mouth of
reen river. The southern boundary of
ldiana extends to the low water mark in
ie Ohio river, Kentucky owning the
lannel and this island, which is only
lch in high water, has been considered as
:longing to the latter state, although for